Juris Magazine- Fall 1980

(

Imports

(

........

.,,' )

Unemployment

(

(i) )

Environmental Regulation

t:-l

-

)

Wages-and. Benefits

I

Editor's Note

I I

At every turn, we are compelled to make decisions which may effect the course of our lives and the lives of those who come in contact with us . This is equally true of both the professional decisions we make and the social choices we are compelled to make by the nature of our existence.

To say that these decisions are hard is to underrate the potential effect of any link in the chain of the countless moments of our lives. At best, the consequences VOL XV No.1 - Fall 1980 of anyone decision can only be estimated from our narrow viewpoint. At worst, a casual miscalculation can be disastrous in the unknown future .

Editor-in-Chief In a conscious effort to reduce the opportunity for miscalculation, we must Michael J. Calabro turn to every available avenue of information. To aid in our efforts, JURIS has as one of its goals the dissemination of reliable information from sources close to Associate Editors the events.

John Braszo JURIS has a circulation of nearly 5000 copies, disseminated four times yearly.

Lauren L. Blackburn It is mailed throughout the United States and to six foreign countries. We strive G. Anthony SipIin to enable our readership to rely on the information we provide and to maintain their interest in the variegated fabric of the law, from which our articles are culled.

Assistant Editors This year, our congratulations go out to past Editor-in-Chief, Barry Cosey and Cynthia Frederick his fine 1979-1980 staff. Their efforts were recognized this past summer by the Paul McGrath American Bar Association. In the 1980 ABA/ LSD Newspaper Competition, JURIS came away with the Third Circuit Regional Award. They are to be conFaculty Advisor gr~tulated for their efforts in continuing the tradition of excellence which each John J. Sciullo succeeding Volume of JURIS aspires to maintain.

Like them, we of the 1980-1981 staff will lend our best efforts to provide inPhotography sight into provocative areas of the law and to maintain the standard of providing Lynn Stewart topics of current interest in the pages of JURIS .

I wish to extend to our readership our continuing invitation to contribute Illustration publishable articles, comments, and letters on law-related topics. We will Tony Bitner endeavor to allow comment and expression in a free and academic atmosphere and to adhere to the high standards which our predecessors have infused into this I Staff Members: Paul Giba, Philip magazine.

Ebersole, Wayne Spaeth, Pamela Those who are involved with JURIS on a day-to-day basis contribute their time Haywood. because of their interest and no remuneration beyond the satisfaction of our JURIS is a student publication of the readership in our work is provided . In our co-operative effort, we will reach the Duquesne University School of Law . goals which stand at the end of our journey.

I

Sincerely,

Michael J. Calabro Editor-in-Chief

I

In this issue

2

Views and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of JURIS or Duquesne University . All manuscripts and comments may be addressed to JURIS, Duquesne University School of Law, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

Telephone (412) 434-6305 Copyright 1980 Duquesne University

3

1980-1981 JURIS EDITORIAL BOARD

6

ORIENTATION

4

NEW LIBRARIAN

8

STEEL CLOSINGS

5

LEGAL CLINICS

12

NEW PROFESSORS INTERVIEWED

5

LIBRARY RENOVATIONS

13

FOOTNOTES

I

'lflw,Amerimit}jar 1\ssooatioR

S

elll\? Studmt 2)i"isioll.

1979-1~SO

GAZINF.

)rd Qircuit Tle\"sfX1~r Award Juris '1)u'{lll?STU' l'ow School

'80

('lass)!

A",o.-d.d A':J""'c " San. Fro"C",S("O,

"dO

ealjronl~a..

ased on resumes, interviews, past experience in the field of journalism, and qualifications evinced by law school performance, the 1980-1981 Editorial board of JURIS Magazine was chosen by the outgoing Editorial Board and JURIS' faculty advisor, Professor John Sciullo.

This year's Editorial Board is composed of six members. Michael J. Calabro (3D) assumed the post of Editor-in-Chief. Associate Editors are John Braszo (3D), Lauren Blackburn (30), and G. Anthony Siplin (3D). Assistant Editors are Cynthia Frederick (3D) and Paul McGrath

B

p

la

the w. lOt esne

(20).

¡:"1

lIS,

w,

Clockwise from top: Michael J. Calabro, Lauren L. Blackburn, Paul McGrath, Cynthia Frederick, John Braszo, G. Anthony Siplin.

Opportunities to assume positions on the Board are extended to Law School students at the end of each academic year. Staff positions are filled during the year to supplement the Editorial Board. Several openings are available and students in both day and evening divisions are invited to apply for a staff position or contribute publishable material.

This year's Editorial Board follows an award winning 1979-1980 staff.

JURIS captured the Third Circuit Regional A ward in the American Bar Association/Law Student Division 1980 Newspaper Contest. Awards were made at the ABA/LSD convention in California, this past August and were the result of judging which began in June of 1980. Entries to the contest came from law schools throughout the United States. •

I

3

New Librarian Focusing on Student Needs ecently, Frank Yining Liu was

R appointed to fill the position of head law librarian for the John E. Laughlin Memorial Law Library, at Duquesne Law School.

Mr. Liu is a graduate of National Taiwan University, receiving his LL.B. in June of 1965. He attended Yale Law School in 1966 and 1967 on a Graduate Study Fellowship with emphasis on International law. He then attended the University of Texas at Austin where he received his master's degree in Comparative Jurisprudence, and a second master's degree in Library Science. After serving as a lecturer in Library Science at the University of Texas, Liu was employed as an assistant librarian at the Villanova University School of Law where he served until accepting his present position. He is a member of the American Association of Law Librarians and the Greater Philadelphia Law Library Association, where he served as an Executive Board Member.

In discussing the present condition of the library, Liu stated that it currently holds that which is basically required for accreditation in terms of numbers of volumes, and thus has a good basic foundation. However, he pointed to several areas which are in need of serious revamping and development, to which he will direct his immediate attention. "My primary responsibility is to build this library to a level of excellence that will meet the needs of the students, faculty and alumni ... and to maintain it." To reach this goal, Liu first plans to improve the quantity and quality of the library collection, with particular emphasis on the problem of the lack of duplicate copies of heavily used materials. He is quick to point out that this problem is already in the process of resolution. "The faculty library committee has made recommendations for purchasing several categories of materials which include treatises, looseleaf services, additional copies of the Atlantic Reporter, the U.S. Reports, Purdons,

4

Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, Vale's Digest, and major law reviews." Liu also sees the need to develop a good acquisition policy with faculty/student input and consultation in order to purchase needed volumes on a systematic basis.

"There is no need to bui ld a big library collection with hundreds of thousands of volumes, however our collection must be thorough and complete. In other words, we should be able to provide the students, faculty and alumni with all that they need ... and if a student is in need of any kind of information which is not in our collection, I believe it is our responsibility to make sure that he gets it either through the inter-library loan system, or by other means of acquisition.' ,

In terms of long range objectives, Liu feels that several needs must be fulfilled in order to bring the law school up to par with other law school libraries, the first of which is a computer legal-information retrieval system, namely the Lexis or Westlaw systems. "I have no doubt that we should have it (Lexis or Westlaw), because this is something many other law schools and a growing number of law firms rely on for the bulk of their legal research. Our graduates will inevitably encounter the need for using these systems and should have at least some experience in law school with them. Computer assisted research has developed to a point where it is an integral part of a law school's total legal research program." Liu stated that he is currently studying the pros and cons of the two systems and hopes to make a recommendation to the faculty in the near future.

The second of his long range needs is the acquisition of a comprehensive microform system. Liu pointed out that a microform system could be of particular benefit to a law library such as Duquesne's in that it can be used as a substitute for materials which require a large amount of space, but which are not often used.

It can be purchased for much less than the cost of hardbound copies of the same volumes. Provisions have already been made in the current library renovation project for a microform storage room equipped with readers and printers.

op~

tra( mel

alte (

elin

rea pai

ope

Pit of

COt

inc Th

leg

elil

wic

"

In addition to improving the collection of titles in the law library, Mr. Liu alluded to several other areas of concern. First, he stated that there is a need for a full-time reference librarian, to be stationed throughout the day at the library reference desk in the main reading room. The function of the reference librarian would be to aid in the location of titles in the library and to assist students, faculty and alumni in research-related problems. Second, Liu sugges~ed that the library should provide a thorough, comprehensive library users guide which he plans to prepare and make available as soon as the current library renovations are completed.

I think that if the students can learn the art of legal reasoning and can develop a feeling for justice that they will have learned all that this school has to offer."

Perhaps the most commendable of Mr. Liu's goals as head librarian is to make the law library a self-sufficient legal research center, to which students, faculty and alumni can turn, confident that the library will provide them with the tools necessary for quality legal research . •

I

41

1111

L

a

iii

s( d

o

te sc

tl tl Ii

F

tl

v

t:

:tives, 1st be e law ~ law :h is a rieval ~stlaw

lt we :Iaw), other )er of . their ill inusing least with h has In intotal tated pros and m to

leeds nsive out Je of )rary In be :rials t of lsed. less es of have rrent

Ir

a

Jped

e

19 ~I

Ie of is to :ient hich can will sary

Legal Clinics • A NeVI Option Local Clinic Lawyers State Opinion he Legal Clinic is a new entry into the legal field. The phrase relatively unknown only a few years ago. Probably no two legal clinics would define their function and aim in precisely the same way, but generally all aspire to provide the consuming public with a relatively inexpensive· alternative to personal counsel.

Some members of the Pennsylvania legal community in general and the Pittsburgh segment of that group in particular have been conservative in their view of the changes affecting the legal profession in the past few years.

Many attorneys in Pittsburgh see the clinic as an operation which may operate to steer clients away from the traditional legal system, to their detriment. Others see the clinic as a viable alternative in a consumeristic society.

Only a little over a year old, the clinic of Cantor and Levine, P.C. has reaped benefits from a vigorous campaign of advertising. This three-man operation with offices in downtown Pittsburgh and the Shadyside section of the city hopes to make legal counsel more available to the middle income sector of the community.

Their goal of high quality, low cost legal assistance is typical of the legal clinics currently in operation, nationwide. This particular clinic attempts

T was

to deliver the required legal services in a relaxed and forthright manner. The sparse furnishings of the office, the approachability of the attorneys, and the posted fee schedule are all calculated to add to this approach.

The overall atmosphere is created to relax the client and relieve the anxiety and reluctance which may often accompany a client into the office.

Max Levine, a University of Pittsburgh Law School graduate with experience in Neighborhood Legal Services and private practice, feels that the clinic has both posi tive and negative effects on prospective clients. It is his opinion that the clinic may allay a client's fears of being overcharged, but can generate concern about the quality o f the advice given to him and the competency of his counsel.

Craig McClean, the newest attorney at the clinic, thinks the clinic can be most efficient when handling the guidance oJ clients through the legal system. In his view the emphasis should be on procedural, rather than substantive matters, although he recognizes that the attorney must still possess the requisite expertise in substantive law. McClean not e that only a small percentage of the practice of law is devoted to t he mo re academic aspects and that much of

Library Renovations ignificant renovations are currently underway in the John E. Laughlin Memorial Law Library. As a result of these renovations, the library is in a process of expansion, soon to include the tenth floor in addition to the eighth and ninth floors of Rockwell Hall.

The renovation of the ninth and tenth floors has added a total 0 f 4 ,215 square feet to the 12,400 square feet the library currently occupies, which translates to a 34070 increase in overall library space. According to Mr. Frank Liu, head librarian, much of the new area will be utilized to provide additional seating for fifty to sixty students, raising the total seating

S

capacity to approximately 250. This would allow roughly 65% of the law student body to be seated at anyone time in the library. Along with the increased seating capacity, the renovations will provide an estimated 2,898 linear feet of additional shelf space, which will allow expansion of the library's collection by 14,500 volumes. Liu stated that a proposed Security System is included in the renovation project, which, when implemented, will limit access to the library to one monitored entrance and exit, thus eliminating much of the problem of missing volumes. The security system will also minimize the number of titles on reserve. Liu

the clinic's work deals with recurrent transactions.

In summary, these two clinic lawyers feel that the 1980's are an era of choice and that the clinic offers the consumer a viable alternative to personal representation in every instance where the complexities of the transaction do not require the use of full• time counsel.

.,r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

)Pr ~o,...ctL. WJv~Y I

• • • • • •

t CUSTOD V I

I

DEEO!.

1

COltU.TIONS

f

IDfYogc.e s I ~

~

•

•

• •

TII )( ES

WRI".,5

T .".

pointed out that most of the volumes presently on reserve are there only because they are either expen sive or difficult to replace.

In addition to the renovations on the ninth and tent h floors, plans have been drawn for the revamping of portions of the eight h floor. A large open circulation desk has been proposed for the area outside of the existing reserve room, behind which would be the future reserve section. The ex. isting library staff offices are to be converted into a working area, and a portion of the reading area on the eighth floor would be used as library staff offices . A definite target date for completion of the project has not been set.

I

• 5

I

Orientation Introduction to Law School

Orientation 1980, the first official welcome and introduction to law school for the day class of 1984 and the night class of 1985, was held September 2 in Rockwell Hall's Peter Mills Auditorium. The speakers refrained from any Orwellian references. John Gedid, professor and faculty advisor to the Orientation Committee, opened the well-orchestrated program with a very personal address to the incoming classes. SBA President, Kevin Leonard, provided services as Master of Ceremonies and followed Professor Gedid's speech with comments steeped in practicality and spiced with humor.

Duquesne University's new President, Rev. Donald Nesti, and Law School Dean Ronald Davenport addressed the First Year students with comments calculated to both encourage and challenge. The Honorable Gustave Diamond, from the bench of Pennsylvania's Federal Western District provided the capping speech of the evening by putting the study of law at Duquesne into historical perspective.

The program included the introduction of the Law School's four new professors and new Head Librarian.

The formal program was followed with discussion group sessions, which allowed both upperclass students and the faculty to pass on their acquired knowledge about- survival in law school to the neophytes. A social hour followed the group sessions and rounded out the evening.

Annual Orientation generally consists of single meetings, but this year, the Orientation committee scheduled a second session on the Saturday following the first week of classes to provide an opportunity for the new students to ask questions and opinions of the upperclassmen after a small dose of real law school life.

Many of the Law School's social and professional associations were also represented at the orientation to provide insight into the other facets of the law school experience. They provided an opportunity for the incoming classes to see their operations "up close" and not merely through publications and social activities. •

6

Judge Diamond addresses new classes.

13 LOO HOLE LA5SITER. DEAN WlNDNIMPER HAS A~KED ME:. m AOORES) lHI3 ORIENTATION GArt-£RING ON THE SUBJECT OF S TUDENT LIFE Af 1£6REE.

RATHER lHAN READ MY PREPARED TEXT,

DO NOT REFER. TO DE:'AN BLITZKRIEG A& OOCTOR STRANGELOVE _ THE DEAN IS A SENSITNE HUMAN BEING WHO DEE PLY R.EGRE TS illS PERIODIC. INDULGENCE IN NJIHORITARIAN .. ,

RULE ONE: NO lD6A PARriES DURING EXAM WEEK. A BITTER MCRIFICE Bur

WHO PROMI SED NIRVANA? RULE l\NO: NEVER ~GET lH.q OOCRATE3 DIED FROM HIS METH0D3. WHEN IN CLfl~ KE!::P YOUR HEAD OOWN, yoUR MOUTH SHUT AND ALWAYS PASS Ttil HEMLOCK.

AS MISTER LASSITER \V-\,s so.YINK. DILI6ENT BRIEFING, PER50NAL OUTLlNE6 AND A POOITNE

MENlAL OUTLOOK ARE THE KfY.5 TO LAW .scHOOL .5UCCESS.

oor 7

s h $

Steel Closings: The Sharp Legal Edge he American Steel Industry is in serious trouble. Unemployment has reached epidemic proportions.

Steel capacity has declined to its lowest point since the 1930's. The periodic closing of steel plants, recently dramatized by the shutdown of 16 u.s. Steel facilities, is evidence that domestic steel is beset by serious difficulties. Domestic Steel, which is directly and indirectly responsible for the livelihood of millions of Americans, faces a number of crippling problems. Among the most prominent are unfair marketing practices of foreign producers, large, unproductive capital expenditures required by excessive federal regulations, inadequate capital formation, and antiquated facilities.

Steel has become the backbone of industrial America . There is a wide use of finished steel products in all segments of the American economy : manufacturing, construction, defense, mining, energy, transportation and agriculture . Once developing nations realize the importance of steel in the growth of their country, they move quickly to make the steel industry the heart of their economies. The importance of steel to the American economy cannot be neglected.

Steel is a vital element in the exploration, production, and distribution of all types of energy. This is true of existing energy sources as well as new sources, now under development, which will supply America's future needs.

Steel is critical to America's national defense. Our military capabilities depend heavily on steel.

Nearly every item of military equipment contains steel components for which no acceptable substitutes are known. The nation's ability to move military forces and to maintain capable support activities equally depend upon steel. Without an adequate and continuing supply of steel products, a strong military is not possible.

In 1978, America depended upon foreign steel for 18070 of its needs.

T

8

by Paul R. Giba This dependence resembles the predicament the petroleum industry faced in the mid-sixties when oil imports represented close to 20070 of domestic consumption. Today, America still suffers from a shortage of oil. Both steel and oil are crucial to the nation's existence. These two important resources are among the first to be put on allocation in a national emergency. As steel production continues to decline, America's economy will become more and more dependent upon foreign steel. America cannot afford to become as dependent upon foreign steel as it is upon foreign oil.

Domestic steel urgently needs a national steel policy which would carefully assess the priorities and needs of this industry on which so many Americans depend. Despite pleas from both industry and labor, governmental policy still refuses to reflect steel industry needs. Government's cold shoulder toward steel has contributed to wide-spread unemployment and economic hardship for many steel communities.

The industry maintains that a combination of insensitive government policy and rising steel imports have stripped steel of the financial muscle to modernize, expand, and replace worn-out, antiquated facilities. On the other hand, critics assert that management has not been doing its job in keeping plants up to date in order to meet foreign competition.

Critics argue that such management represents decades of maximizing profits to look good for the short term, while ignoring long-term consequences .

What Is Causing The Crisis?

U.S. Steel Corporation recently decided to close 16 of its facilities claiming they had become "noncompetitive ." Three years ago, Bethlehem Steel Corporation closed major portions of its plants in Johnstown, PA, and Lackawanna, N.Y., arguing they were no longer "economically viable." At the same time that Bethlehem announced its partial closings, Jones & Laughlin - L.T.V. Corporation closed major portions of its Youngstown Sheet and Tube works in Youngstown , Ohio. The latest rumors of more steel closings comes from Kaiser Corporation.

Plagued by its inability to comply with Federal Environmental Regulations and feeling the affects of steel imports, analysts are predicting liquidation of steel operations for Kaiser.

Has Domestic Steel Created Its Own Crisis?

Critics contend that two significant factors have led steel to formulate its own demise. The first is steel's history of conceding to labor's demands for increased wages and fringe benefits .

There is no doubt that the United Steelworkers of America's Basic Steel Agreement is healthy. In fact, the three-year contract signed in 1977 has proven to be even more lucrative in its final year (1980) than anyone expected, mainly because of the current rate of inflation. In 1977, the projected gain in wage and cost-of-living increases over the three-year period was 34070. Actually, it was 48070. The per-steel worker employment cost to

st b si b

a bt Pi

a S P\ fa

Bl se

• r

:>m~ent

lave scle lace On hat its : in on. ,ent :ing lort Ilse-

steel firms at the end of the contract has been said to have exceeded S30,OOO per year. Under the Experimental Negotiating Agreement (ENA) signed In 1973, which prohibits an industry-wide strike, wages have increased 1200,70 in six years. An income guarantee program for senior workers, initiated in the 1977 contract, has lessened the blow for some steelworkers, but increased the burden on the industry.

However lucrative one may consider the Basic Steel Agreement these benefits did not prevent some 500 angry Youngstown steelworkers from besieging U.S. Steel Headquarters in Pittsburgh shortly after the shutdown announcement. Similarly, at U.S. Steel's American Bridge Division in Ambridge, P A, the only plant in the fabricating industry covered by the Basic Steel Contract, workers voted several times to reject a company of-

on~y 14th in chemical industry sales, it is climbing in production profitability, capacity and contribution to the parent firm's financial position .

Furthermore, U.S.S. Chemical's investment in chemical facilities has grown from $100 million in 1977 to $500 million in 1979. And ironically, as U.S. Steel was announcing its steel shutdown schedule, U .S.S. Chemicals was boasting a $1 billion joint venture with Texaco, Inc., to market high-density polythylene. The plan included construction of a 550 million pounds per year production plant.

The chemicals division also has plans for the construction of 1.5 billion pounds per year light olefin cracking plant. The insinuation is that money made in steel goes into diversification and non-steel activities. U.S . Steel Chairman, David M. Roderick, claims the reverse is true, that is, not only is steel money put back into steel, but other operations have been making up steel's deficit in needed capital expenditure funds .

Major steel producers have been reluctant to force shareholders to bear the burden of modernization. In fact, in the last five years, dividend payments have averaged 72% of U.S. Steel's earnings and 83% of Bethlehem's earnings. That percentage leaves little money for modernization .

a

Has Governmental Policy Contributed To Steel's Woes?

Its

ant its

Dry for its. ted eel the

1as its ex~nt

romg od 'he to

fer to keep the plant open in return for a wage freeze. With reluctance, however, American Bridge wor kers finally accepted the company's last offer to keep facilities open. The Ambridge plant was among those included in the shutdown schedule .

The second factor contributing to steel's demise is steel's alleged practice of putting steel profits into nonsteel activities instead of modernizing ailing, antiquated facilities. The best example of this supposed practice is U.S. Steel's venture into chemicals.

While U.S. Steel remains the nation's No. 1 steel producer its position is eroding; steel accounted for only 70% of U.S. steel profits in 1979 .

Although U.S.S. Chemicals is ranked

The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), adjunct to domestic steel, maintains that the domestic industry is slowly "losing its competitive edge ." The steel industry is faced with a capital shortage in relation to its great needs. It must modernize existing plants and build new steel plants so that American steelmaking technology is competitive with more modern foreign mills. It mu st also meet the great expense of compliance with federal environmen- . tal and industrial health standards.

The problems of meeting these two great requirements with sufficient capital will get only worse as American steel faci Iities increase in age and as the industry is faced with meeting stricter health and safety regulations and more stringent "secondary" pollution abatement requirements. At the heart of this lack of capital are a number of complex

and interrelated issues which include: anti-dumping laws, the trigger-price mechanism, government environment and industrial health regulations, capital recovery (depreciation) laws, and the need to modernize.

The most significant factor contributing to the American Steel Industry's loss of the "competitive edge" is the pervasive and large-scale practice of unfair pricing of steel in American markets by foreign producers . Unfair pricing is not just selling at low price; it means either (a) selling at a price in the U.S. market lower than an exporter's Income market price or (b) selling at a price insufficient to cover the producer's full average costs , including profit. Both of these practices are known as "dumping ." "Dumping" has prevented domestic producers from generating an adequate cash flow . This, in turn , has prevented the industr y from undertaking many urgently needed investments for moderni zation and expansion of productive facilitie s.

Dumping is used b y foreign competitors as a mean s of achieving market penetration in the United States. Foreign producers have developed their steel-making facilities more rapidly than their a bility to market their steel in their home markets. Logically, t hey target the open market in the United States for much of their surplus, which is frequently sold at less tha n fair market value and at prices significantly below those of American steel producers .

Domestic steel producers turned to foreign markets during 1950 ' s because the threat of lengthy American steel strikes led to inadequate supplies . However, in 1973 the United Steelworkers of America and American industry entered into the Experimental Negotiating Agreement (ENA). This agreement utilizes a rbitration as a means for settl ing unresolved contractual issues, and as such, eliminates the possibility of an industry-wide strike. In spite of the ENA foreign imports have increased from 13% in 1973 to 18070 in 1978.

The combination of lost sales ;1nd depressed revenues have virtually eliminated the industry's productive capacity and has caused most producers to experience large operating losses.

The fast-growing penetration of the U.S. market by dumped foreign steel also occurred because U .S. laws 9

against unfair trade practices such as dumping have not been fully and vigorously enforced. In response to steel industry pleas the Carter Administration established a Trigger Price Mechanism (TPM) to prevent unfair trade practices. The TPM is a procedural device designed to facilitate enforcement of antidumping laws; it is not designed to restrict imports as such. U.S. Steel has recently filed suits claiming that steel producers from seven European nations are dumping in the United States and this unfair practice has caused injury to the domestic steel industry. The Commerce Department has already accepted those dumping cases, and recently the International Trade Commission (ITC) handed down a decision that sufficient injury exists to warrant further investigation.

The American Steel industry's ability to compete is further complicated by the subsidization of foreign steel producers by their respective governments.

Because the TPM is based on a calculation of steel producers' costs in Japan, believed by the U.S. Treasury to be the lowest of major steel producers, the TPM allowed higher cost (non-Japanese) exporters to sell in the U.S. market at dumping prices. Recognizing this inequity the Carter Administration withdrew the TPM in March of this year.

The most damaging aspect of this trade aggression isn't the damage that's been done to steel, but the damage that could result to other sectors of the American economy as these predatory foreign trade policies spread to other industries. It is evident that the same pattern is repeating itself in the automobile and truck industry; in aircraft, and in chemicals.

And it could spill over into even high technology industries: electronics, computers, microchips. No matter how competitive, how innovative, how well positioned, how brilliantly managed an industry may be, it ultimately cannot compete against industries which are heavily subsidized and supported by the massive fiscal power of their national governments.

The second major problem contributing to the lack of a "competItIve edge" are purportedly excessive government regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oc!O

cupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA). The costs of complying with the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972 have placed a significant burden on the steel industry. By the close of 1978, the industry had invested $3.7 billion ($6 billion in 1978 dollars) for environmental control facilities. Direct operating and maintenance costs for these environmental control facilities are in excess of $550 million per year.

OSHA standards have cost the steel industry sizeable profits. Ironically, since the enactment of OSHA in 1970 there has been no significant improvement in the disabling rate, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Moreover, the adoption of OSHA's 4,000 safety standards did not consider age of equipment, retrofit problems, or need based on injury experience. During the period of 1950-1970, the steel industry took it upon itself to reduce its disabling rate. During these two decades, it decreased by 271170. Everyone agrees that environmental and safety stan-

new and more efficient facilities and, as a result, efficiency improvements have not been of sufficient magnitude to offset the rapid increases in perunit costs of raw materials, energy and labor. Despite significant conservation efforts by steel industries, their energy costs have risen dramatically.

Over 801170 of the energy cost increase stems from the oil embargo.

Finally, the loss of a "competitive edge" can be attributed to the inadequacy of tax law provisions for the recovery of capital. Recovery of capital through depreciation involves the systematic write-off of the original purchase price of the plant and equipment as a necessary cost of doing business. Federal income tax laws were written during a period when inflation was not a significant economic factor offsetting the replacement cost of plant and equipment. In recent years, however, inflation has become severe. It now costs approximately two to three times as much as it did in the 1960's to replace plant and equipment. Federal income tax laws do not provide for the impact of inflation on plant and equipment replacement and therefore, do not recognize the true cost of doing business. Because costs are understated, profits are overstated and so too are the taxes paid on these profits.

How About Government Aid?

dards are necessary, but the burdensome expense of government regulations is consuming steel profits, which could otherwise be used to modernize.

Another related regulatory problem is government interference in market pricing. Since World War II, selling prices for steel have been constrained in some manner by the U.S. government, while foreign nations have subsidized their steel industries.

In the past it has been politically popular to attack steel price increases and to blame them on inflation . Historically, the cost of steel production has increased more rapidly than price increases. In other words,.major steel industry cost factors (purchased goods and services, and employment costs) have risen more rapidly than steel prices. This is reflected by the inability of the steel industry to install

The American Steel Industry seems to be hopelessly divided over the question of government help for steel companies. Some mills strongly oppose federal backing. Others are welcoming all help. Some kinds of aid are considered proper while other kinds are met with strong disapproval.

The steel industry has complained about U.S. financing of foreign steel construction, but a number of major mills are participating in foreign projects. Since World War II American technology has been given or sold to foreign competitors and as a result foreign competitors are now capturing the world steel market. The tables have now been turned. Ironically, American steel companies are now seeking monetary and technological advice from foreign competitors.

Armco Corporation recently announced the signing of a trade agreement with Nippon Steel of Japan in which Nippon will acquire Armco's

1d, nts Ide er'gy ereir Iy.

lse ve lehe of

路es he nt of :iX

)d nt

ep-

ats :is

::e 1e 1J-

10 Ig r路0

;e

1S

Ie el J~e

d )-

d ~I

Ir

in

o t

s

"

.I

6070 interest in the Iron Ore Company of Canada in exchange for desperately needed technological advice and assistance from Nippon.

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel had secured $105 million in loan guarantees from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the Farmers Home Administration to build a rail mill in Monessen, PA. Wheeling-Pittsburgh . based its need on the extensive pollution control package that would be required in later years. The loan guarantees were later scrapped, however, when domestic steel companies voiced tremendous opposition. Steel companies like Bethlehem Steel are 路 not opposed to giving federal tax dollars to aid in pollution control modifications but they are vehemently opposed to helping a private company move into new product lines. This would have put Wheeling-Pittsburgh into the rail market now occupied by only Bethlehem, C.F. & L. Steel Corp., and United States Steel Corp.

The largest guarantee so far is for a $111 million loan to Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. There has been no criticism of this program, which is for modernization and pollution abatement. Another $100 million will be made available by EDA if someone can come up with a good project for Youngstown, Ohio.

In an open letter to U.S. Steel management in December, 1979, David M. Roderick, Chairman of U.S. Steel, commented on his company's position on government aid, saying: We really don't beLieve in industrial welfare. Our company doesn't support the concept of bailout. We think you have a right to succeed and a right to fail. The operations we have decided to shut down are no longer economic; they are no longer in the market place.

Some Modest Proposals ome steps have been taken in the right direction but unfortunately governmental remedy requires patience. The efforts of labor and steel communities affected by plant shutdowns have proven less fruitful than expected in alleviating the plight of steelworkers.

Senator Donald Riegle (D . Mich.) has introduced novel legislation which would require companies to give six months to two years notice

S

before pulling out. This legislation, introduced over one year ago, is designed to make companies think twice about pulling up stakes and going elsewhere. This notion of prior notice could give communities like Youngstown, Ohio time to find other ways to use abandoned plants and equipment. "The bill", says Senator Riegle, "is designed to assure that large corporations take into account the interests of long-time workers and of communities when they consider closing or relocating plants." He adds, "The Congress and the American people have the responsibility to develop a national strategy now and avoid economic turmoil in the future." Labor supports the measure but business sees it as an infringement on their rights of free choice.

Critics of the bill maintain that under many economic conditions it is impossible for a company to know one year or more in advance that it is going to be forced to close . The bill also makes no distinction between companies making a conscious deci-

sion to close and those forced out of business.

Another interesting proposal attempts to loosen the environmental regulations' strangle-hold on industry. This bill sponsored by Congressman Lyle Williams of Youngstown, Ohio attempts to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from promulgating any new rules or regulations before June I, 1981, and to prevent any EPA enforcement actions which would result in the closing of any facilities before June I, 1981, without congressional approval. This meas ure is welcomed by labor, business, and commUnities who face economic destruction by plant closings.

The United Steelworkers of America (USWA) have gained considerable ground in their efforts to prevent unwarranted plant closings. The 1980

Basic Steel Agreement requires a company to give at least 90 days advance written notice to the Union before making a final decision 路 to permanently close a plant or a department of a plant. The Agreement also requires the company to meet with Union representatives to discuss the proposed plant or departmental closure. The company must advise the Union of its final decision no less than 30 days before the proposed closing date.

The new provision of the Basic Steel Agreement is a first step in the direction of giving the Union and responsible community groups an opportunity to seek alternatives to plant closings. This alters the previous freedom of companies to legally close their plants at will without regard to the damage that might result to workers and communities; without discussing the shutdown decision with anyone and wit hout any advance notice .

Steelworkers in Youngstown filed suit in Federal court in December, 1979 when it was announced that U.S . Steel would be closing its Ohio and McDonald Works. United Steelworkers' Local 1330 sought an injunction to prevent U.S. Steel from permanently closing its plants in Youngstown . U .S. District Court Judge Thomas Lambrosc issued a temporary restraining order pending a hearing to determine the fea sibility of a community-steelworker purchase. The fate of somc 3,600 steelworkers employed by U.S. Steel in Youngstown seemed inevitable. Beset by exorbitant costs of complying with EPA regulations the company decided that revitalizing existing fa c ilities in Youngstown would be uneconomical. The hearing commen ced in mid-Marc h, 1980 in Federal Di strict Court in Youngstown.

The complaint alleged an oral promise from Chairman Roderick to Ohio Works Superintendent William Kirwan and labor leaders in Youngstown to keep the mills open as long as they were profitable. Although the facilities in Youngstown were considered marginally profitable, the age of the plant, built in 1896, was against continued profitability. U.S. Steel's defense insisted Roderick's promises were merely "words of encouragement and not a bindi~g con(conlil/ll ed 01/ /lug C' f.J)

I'

New Professors Interviewed n an effort to bring the faculty-

I student ratio in compliance with ABA-AALS guidelines, four assistant professors of law have been added to the faculty of the Duquesne University School of law: Neil Tetsu Gotanda, Bruce Stuart Ledewitz, John William Lyttle, Jr., and Robert D. Taylor.

Professor Gotanda graduated in 1967 from Stanford University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics and received his Juris Doctor in 1972 from University of California at Berkeley. Upon graduation from law school, Gotanda served with the Asian Law Caucus, a private foundation assisting the Asian community in the San Francisco area. Before attending Harvard University where he received his master's degree in law, Gotanda worked with the California Rural Legal Assistance Agency and the State Fair Employment Practice Commission.

When asked why he decided to go from practicing law to teaching, Gotanda responded by saying, "I felt that teaching would be a fulfilling experience in the sense that it offers more of a chance for study and reflection upon the law than a practice does, along with an opportunity to devote 路more time to scholarly legal writing. I came to Duquesne because it offered the best opportunity to further my goals in education."

Gotanda stated that since this is his first teaching position, he feels that he is in the same position as the first-

12

year students he will be teaching. He feels his role as an educator is a new and challenging experience, and is one that requires a great deal of time and preparation in order to succeed.

Professor Gotanda will be teaching Torts to the first-year day and evening students as well as an elective course on Political and Civil Rights.

Professor Bruce Ledewitz is a summa cum laude graduate of Georgetown University where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Foreign Service in 1974. He then attended Yale Law School, and in 1977 was awarded his J.D. degree. Before accepting his present position as assistant professor, he served as a law clerk to Justice Robert L. Taylor, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

According to Ledewitz, "I wanted to teach simply because I enjoy studying law and the classes that I am teaching are in the areas of my interest. Preparing for these classes has been a very enjoyable experience.

Also, I believe that teaching and discussing the subject matter with the students will prove to be extremely worthwhile to me ... I think I can learn a lot."

Ledewitz was initially going to teach an elective course on Presidential Powers on a part-tilbe basis, however, a full-time position later became available for him. In addition to the course on Presidential Powers,

Ledewitz will be teaching Constitutional Law to the second year evening division this fall, and will be teaching Criminal Law to the first year day division this spring.

Professor Ledewitz plans to supplement his teaching duties by practicing for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Defender's office, where he is currently assisting the mental health unit with appeals.

Additionally, he intends to do further writing on certain aspects of presidential power, particularly the power of the President to enforce the fourteenth amendment.

When asked what he felt was a good formula for success in law school, Ledewitz replied, "The formula for success in any class is to learn the process of legal reasoning. I think that is the most important thing a student can learn at this school, and I don't believe that the subject matter in any particular course will prove to be nearly as important to a student as mastering that skill. It is also important to a law student to learn how judges and lawyers approach legal questions, and I hope, to convey some feeling for justice. I think that if students can learn the art of legal reasoning and can develop a feeling for justice, that they will have learned all that this school has to offer. Finally, I hope my students will enjoy my class as much as I will enjoy teaching them."

Professor John Lyttle is a 1962 Bachelor of Science graduate of Fordham College. He received his Juris Doctor degree from the Fordham School of Law in 1965. Following a tour of duty with the Army in Europe, he returned to practice law with two prominent firms in New York and New Jersey in which he received partnership status. In 1977, Lyttle received his L.L.M. in Taxation at New York University.

When asked why he decided to go into teaching and give up a successful practice Lyttle said, "First, I come from a family of educators, and second, I have wanted to try teaching

I J-

g g ,y )-

;-

r's g

because I have always felt an obligation to give to the next generation what I have learned." When questioned as to why he chose to teach at Duquesne, Lyttle stated that when he was interviewed by members of the faculty and administration, he felt very comfortable around them and thought he would enjoy working in Duquesne's type of atmosphere. He went on to note that one of the law school's biggest assets is its faculty, and that all of the professors he has met are extremely competent.

;.

:r 1-

,f '-

a w

o I

g d

T

o

.s

IV

II Y f

Professor Lyttle will be teaching the second year day division the required course on Taxation during the fall semester and a Taxation elective in the spring semester.

Professor Robert Taylor, a recent Duquesne University School of Law alumnus, has been appointed to teach Municipal Corporations this fall and the Legal Philosophy and Civil Procedure courses in the spring semester.

Prior to attending Duquesne, Taylor completed his undergraduate work at the University of Pittsburgh, receiving his B.S. degree, magna cum laude, in physics and mathematics.

He then attended the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary where he earned his Master of Divinity degree, summa cum laude, and was ordained in 1963.

While at Duquesne, Taylor received the Distinguished Student Award, was a member of the Law Review, and was Editor-in-Chief of Juris.

In addition to having numerous lectureships to his credit, Taylor served as an instructor at the University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Theological Seminary from 1967-1970 as a result of receiving a graduate teaching fellowship. Most recently, he served as law clerk to Justice Rolf Larsen of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

When asked what he believes a law student should strive for in terms of his or her legill education, Taylor said, "the most important thing a law student can learn while in school is the ability to think and work in-

dependently . .. the learning process in law school or anywhere else is one of trial and error. Weare all going to make mistakes, in fact, somebody once called law school voluntary humiliation, but if there is a method for succeeding in law school, it is to learn from your mistakes. A negative experiment is as valuable as a positive one."

- PAUL McGRATH

•

J

g

:l

Footnotes Grading System Changes

2

f s

'-

In its last meeting of the 1979- 1980 academic year, Duquesne Law School faculty voted to restructure the grading system. Although Duquesne graduates have enjoyed a fine reputation for their performance, reports had been received that the prior grading system had some adverse effects, as Duquesne was traditionally lower than other graduate and law schools in its award of grade point averages.

Under the new system, grades awarded to currently enrolled students are to be upgraded to fit into the new system and future grading will be in accordance with the revised parameters.

Minimum grade point average standards were also revised to fit into

the new system so that first year students are required to achieve a 2.925 average. Subsequent to the first year, an average of 2.975 is required, with a maintenance of 3.0 during the final year of study.

The conversion process is underway with transcripts to reflect the changes in 1981.

Old A B+ B C+ C D+ D F

Grade (4.0) (3.5) (3.0) (2.5) (2.0) (1.5) (1.0) (0.0)

New Grade A+ (4.0) A (3.75) A- (3.5) B+ (3.25) B (3.0) C+ (2 .75) (2.5) C (2.0) F

•

Law Alumni Spring Phonathon Eighteen Duquesne Law alumni solicited pledges totaling $19,497 in two nights of phoning during the Spring, 1980 Law alumni appeal. The $19,497 figure represented a 65 per cent increase over the $11,794 contributed in 1979.

Coordinated by Law Alumni Association President Edward G. O'Connor, the appeal took place on the evenings of May 5 and 6 and was directed to select Law graduates, many of whom were past contributors at the donor club level ($100 and above) . Pledges made during the appeal could be restricted to the School of Law or other schools or programs of the University, or remain unrestricted . All pledges made during the May Phonathon will be counted toward the year's $1 million goal of the University's Annual Fund .

•

13

(continued from page II)

tract." The complaint also charged the corporation with an antitrust violation arising from Roderick's pledge not to sell to subsidized competition, such as the proposed federally funded coalition of community and steelworkers. The steelworkers asked the court to order U.S. Steel to offer its two Youngstown mills for sale to the steelworker-consumer coalition.

Led by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the steelworkers traced the history of contract law and the many sacrifices made by the workers to help the mills remain profitable to show that employees had a right to retain their jobs.

"Suppose the company intended to milk the last penny from the sweat of the steelworkers' brow and then arbitrarily when there was nothing left, simply closed the plant?" Asked Clark "Is it conceivable for the law not to redress that?" "I don't see how." Clark asserted.

The Community Steel Corporation which had attempted to secure $50 million in federal loan guarantees tried to convince Judge Lambrose that it could buy and profitably operate the mills if U.S. Steel was willing or forced to sell. Roderick had pledged not to sell the mills to any federally subsidized competitor including steelworkers. On March 21, 1980, Judge Lambrose ruled that U.S. Steel could close its mills in Youngstown but ordered the 路plant to

14

remain in operating condition for 60 days pending an appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Lambrose had dismissed the complaint reasoning that there was no oral contract and that the mills in question were indeed unprofitable.

The Sixth Circuit agreed with Lambrose. Thus, the Steel Era that made Youngstown one of the nation's major steel centers had ended.

Members of the Senate Steel Caucus are attempting to develop a national steel policy. In early August a four page letter signed by Senators John Heinz, (R-Pa.); John Glenn, (D-Ohio); Jennings Randolph, (D-W. Va.); and Birch Bayh, (D-Ind.) was sent to President Carter outlining their own five-point program for revitalizing the steel industry. Claiming that over 75,000 steelworkers are out of work and capacity use is at 55070, the lowest since the 1930's, the Senators called for: faster tax writeoffs on steel plants and equipment; a special one-year write-off for pollution control equipment; revisions in tax credits to provide a better return on investments by steel companies; more fiexibilityby the U.S. Environmental Agency in enforcing compliance deadlines on federal clean air

and water laws; stronger use of the International Steel Committee as a forum for resolving steel trade disputes; the inclusion of specialty steel companies under the umbrella of the trigger price mechanism, (should the Carter Administration choose to revive the import pricing program to stop unfairly priced imports from flooding the domestic mar ket) "dramatic" increases in federal aid for research and development in steelmaking technology; better tax incentives for research and development spending; and someone in the administration to take charge of steel policy and act as a coordinator for a national steel policy.

In their letter the Senators criticized the President's decision not to in-

stitute a two-tiered trigger price mechanism, geared to production costs of both the Japanese and the Europeans. (The old trigger price mechanism (TPM), scraped in March, was geared just to the Japanese, considered the world's most efficient steel producers. Th~ Commerce Department suspended it, however, when U.S. Steel Corporation filed an anti-dumping complaint against producers in seven European countries.) The Senators concluded their letter by advising Carter that they will seek legislative solutions on their own if appropriate leadership from the Executive Branch is not forthcoming.

With increased pressure from Congress, domestic steel, and organized

labor, the Carter Administration announced in late August that it has taken steps toward a national steel policy. Charles Schultze, Chief White House Economic Advisor, unveiled the plan which calls for a refundable tax credit, up to 30070 of which could be used by marginally profitable industries when it would be most helpful. The plan also calls for faster tax write-offs for industry on plants and equipment (The administration proposes to cut the allowable depreciation by 40070 and to simplify the whole tax depreciation system. This would allow industry to more quickly recover the costs of capital investment); an allocation of $300 million to support scientific research and technological development for all industry; an allocation of $600 million to support scientific research and technological development for all industry over the next two years; one billion dollars in 1981 and $2 billion in 1982 in special economic development aid to shrinking industries and hard-pressed regions; (This would be similar to the steel loan program, abandoned this year, which provided loan guarantees for Wheeling- Pittsburgh Steel Corp. to build a new rail

mill in Monessen) and extended unemployment compensation benefits of up to one year for laid off and jobless workers .

For the steel industry, all of the initiatives are partial answers to longstanding -pleas for help. Already critics are characterizing Carter's plan as "peanuts." One month prior to Carter's proposal, William J. Delancey, Chairman of the Iron and Steel Institute and of Republic School Corp., told the House Ways and Means Committee that a 100070 refundable tax credit was needed to modernize the industry. The administration offers 30070.

With the appropriate government policies and improved profitability, steel companies will be motivated to make substantially increased capital expenditures. The installation of modern and efficient facilities will contribute to the health of the domestic economy by improving labor and energy efficiency, which in turn will help to control inflation, maintain employment levels, and reduce reliance on imports. Without these needed government policies, there will be insufficient capital expenditures, aging equipment, lagging productivity, more plant closings, lost jobs, increased reliance upon imports; a growing steel trade deficit, and substantial price escalation .

•

15

#!!!!f!g RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!

I I

-------L

pa.~~~\?eMM~~

fWj

.

j1Jltdi-i:;~ ~ ~ I SG. ~UM{c-1'>

\fw.Q IV. Wtdrut~~, Paul N. Walterson, Jr., altended the February 1980 PMBE Seminar In Philadelphia.

Learn whyPMBE is

the Multistate Specialist!

EAST COAST OFFICE

TOLL FREE

WEST COAST OFFICE

(215) 925-4109

(800) 523-0777

(213) 399-9367

-.

Cover Art: Ken Giba, Kent State University

[f'J1 ~ 1 ~ I~I ~ ~ I~ i I::: c

r

,~'~' ~

""r

3~

Non路Profit Organization

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID Pitt sbu rgh, Pa .

Permit No . 390

i '7 1 ~ -

-::-

0.

.-.,; a.i .'

/. '. /0

:J

~ >

~<l:

~;f;

.

~. u.~

= ", ~

.

0

:-<0

~

," r'

P()STAGE REQUIRED FOR THIS MAILING MATTER

I